A Brief History Of Sotomayor
From wise American (who happens to be Latina) Linda Chavez, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sotomayor:
Despite her assurances to this Committee over the last few days that her statement that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" was simply "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," nothing could be further from the truth. Judge Sotomayor's words weren't uttered off the cuff. They were carefully crafted, repeated -- not just once or even twice -- but at least seven times over several years. If Judge Sotomayor were a white man who suggested that whites or males made better judges, we would not be having this discussion because the nominee would have been forced to withdraw once those words became public.Judge Sotomayor's offensive words are a reflection of her much greater body of work as an ethnic activist and judge. Identity politics is at the core of who this woman is. And let me be clear here, I am not talking about the understandable pride in one's ancestry or ethnic roots, which is both common and natural in a country as diverse and pluralistic as ours.
Identity politics involves a sense of grievance against the majority, a feeling that racism permeates American society and its institutions, and the belief that members of one's own group are victims in a perpetual power struggle with the majority.
From her earliest days at Princeton University and later Yale Law School to her 12-year involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to her speeches and writings, including her jurisprudence, Judge Sotomayor has consistently displayed an affinity for such views.As an undergraduate, she actively pushed for race-based goals and timetables in faculty hiring.
In her senior thesis, she refused to identify the U.S. Congress by its proper name, instead referring to it as the "North American Congress" or the "Mainland Congress."
During her tenure with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, she urged quota-seeking lawsuits challenging civil-service exams.
She opposed the death penalty as racist.
She made dubious arguments in support of bilingual education and tried to equate English language requirements with national origin discrimination.
As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote.
Finally, and perhaps most dramatically, she showed in the New Haven firefighters case a willingness to let her policy preferences guide her, ruling that it was perfectly lawful for the city there to throw out the results of a promotion exam because those who did well on it were the wrong color.
Although she has attempted this week to back away from her own words -- and has accused her critics of taking them out of context -- the record is clear: Identity politics is at the core of Judge Sotomayor's self-definition. It has guided her involvement in advocacy groups, been the topic of much of her public writing and speeches, and influenced her interpretation of law.
There is no reason to believe that her elevation to the Supreme Court will temper this inclination, and much reason to fear that it will play an important role in how she approaches the cases that will come before her if she is confirmed. I therefore strongly urge you not to confirm Judge Sotomayor as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Chavez' book: An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal [Or How I Became the Most Hated Hispanic in America].
Again, if a white man would have been booted for that remark -- and he certainly would have -- so should she. Of course, it would be naive of me to expect Senators or any other politicians to put getting the best justice in there before getting the Latino vote. But, is it possible there are more Latinos out there than they think who are like Chavez? Or do Jews just vote for Jews, Latinos just vote for Latinos, Christians just vote for Christians? Personally, I left a comment on the WSJ's site last night about how great I think Jeff Flake is -- a Mormon with, like, 12 children, who was a missionary in Africa, but who doesn't seem to want to impose his religious values on the rest of us, but who ran the Barry Goldwater Institute and is an outcast in his own party for opposing earmarks -- and seems a bright guy and a fiscally conservative libertarian. More, please!







I watched that panel yesterday and was so impressed by Linda Chavez's testamony. She was eloquent, clear and complete. I thought her speech was a slam dunk. I guess I hadn't realized how much of a given Sotomayor's confirmation was and how Chavez was essentially a token dissent. Grrr...
The senators (except for one or two repuclicans) kept falling over themselves with Sotomayor's "life story". Frankly, I was embarrassed for them.
Personally, I'm all for people supporting what ever group or organization they want. If you wanna support Puerto Ricans on your own time, that's fine by me. Give all the money and time you want. But Sotomayor PROFESSIONALLY opined a racist argument in Ricci v. DeStefano, which was later overturned by the US Supreme Court with ALL 9 JUSTICES agreeing that her stance was inappropriate. Uh... isn't this the Supreme Court justices saying they're not too keen on Sotomayor joining the party?
Grr....
Lauren at July 17, 2009 9:10 AM
I think reaching back to her days as an undergraduate is mostly unfair. It's the sort of act that reminds me I have to make sure my kids get into the right kindergarten, have the right internships, and that I lecture them that when going to college, they remember the permanent record that follows them for ALL time, and so that they never experiment with various philosophies or experiment with who they are and just walk a very narrow line.
On the other hand, the Senate has had an unbreaking chain now of refusing to actually confront supreme court nominees with difficult questions and accepting nonsense and diversion as answers. On the upside, look at how great each Senator appeared on camera!
Chavez line of questioning regarding Sotomayor's record since college does seem valid, it would have been nice if a less grandstanding senator had turned over his/her time to a qualified "prosecutor" to address this and similar lines of questioning.
If Republicans had actually wanted to stop Sotomayor, they would have avoided using her mainly as a specter to scare funds and whip up the base and parade for the camera actually gone after her. I conclude they really didn't take the charges against her seriously, or care.
jerry at July 17, 2009 9:18 AM
If Republicans had actually wanted to stop Sotomayor.....
The problem was she had at least the minimal qualifications to make it as a supreme. She has never really stepped on her genitals. A conservative enough history that no one could truly stick something on her. There could have been a big fight to not put her on the court, but it wasn't worth it.
Besides the dems rushed it along so that they can go back to finding ways to spend our money.
Jim P. at July 17, 2009 10:46 AM
The dems rushed it along for a good reason, to get it over before the new session starts.
But her "minimal qualifications" would/should have melted had opponents actually gone over her comments and cases in any sort of competent and coherent fashion, even asking her as Chavez does, how does a sentence you spoke 7 times fall into the category of "oops, it was not what I meant?"
The way we vet SCOTUS nominees since Bork and allow them to be vetted is craptastic and all it would take to change it is a Senator who actually had some balls and a preference for integrity.
jerry at July 17, 2009 10:51 AM
One more thought, why would the Republican Senators really do any work at vetting Sotomayor? They already had a predetermined vote: NO, based not on qualifications but on politics, so it would never occur to most of them to actually figure out how to vet her or why they needed to.
(Same thing with Dems and Roberts/Alito)
jerry at July 17, 2009 12:48 PM
Re: Jeff Flake.
Actually, almost all the Mormons I know are like that, pretty Libertarian and not forcing their views on people. Of course, I don't live in California (with the whole prop 8 thing). One of my LDS friends told me, "I think it's not what God wants, for a man to marry a man, and I have the right to say that even if it makes people mad, but I really don't see why the government should be telling anyone who they can or can't marry".
Stacy at July 17, 2009 1:30 PM
"As a judge, she dissented from an opinion that the Voting Rights Act does not give prison inmates the right to vote."
I don't think that's such a bad idea. Give them something that reminds them they're still part of our society.
Or we can just let them beat and rape each other in a dog-eat-dog hellhole until they're completely dehumanized, and then turn them out on the street with a bus ticket and some pocket change and see what happens.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 18, 2009 7:37 AM
Leave a comment